anti-choice / pro-choice

[bluem00n]

I occasionally see the terms 'anti-choice' / 'pro-choice' mentioned here, and I reckon they're a much better fit than the labels 'Pro-Life' / 'pro-mortalist' that tend to get bandied about instead - terms that are highly polarising and consequently lead to much heated discussion (unsurprising really, given that Life and Death are irreconcilable / extreme polarities).

Perhaps it would be better instead, if forum members were required to affirm they were 'pro-choice' in a checkbox on their profile, such that in order to gain / retain SS membership, all Registrants would have to specifically declare themselves as 'pro-choice', as that is after all a core tenet of SS, and should therefore be a pre-requisite for membership. And being compelled to tick a pro-choice checkbox might even dissuede fervent 'anti-choice' propagandists from signing up at all.

And if that affirmation was indicated below member avatars as well, it would strengthen the terminology, and in particular help to expel inappropiate use of the term 'Pro-Life' from forum discourse. 'Pro-Life' would instead be superceded by the far more precise 'anti-choice' (which is what it usually means anyway).

It would however have to be made VERY clear what 'pro-choice' actually meant ... does it mean that euthanasia should be more readily available generally, or does it mean that adults should be allowed to choose CTB free of outside interference ...? Or does it mean both ...?

Such modifications would perhaps help cultivate public perceptions of SS as the 'pro-choice' platform it actually is, rather than some kind of fringe 'death cult' as touted by the media.​

 

[odradek]

I think we should have pro-life witch trials here. Once the accused are convicted I have a Modest Proposal for what to do with them.

Anyone who doesn't see the merit in this idea is delusional and should just go away or be insta banned. But I wish them the best. Pro choice bullies are welcome.

 

[FuneralCry]

I don't really think that there has been inappropriate use of the term 'pro life' on here. If it's been used, it's been completely justified at least from what I've seen. I don't believe there to be a problem. But yes they shouldn't allow pro lifers (or pro suffering people) as I like to call them on here. This is a pro choice forum respecting people's right to die after all.
There has been quite a few pro lifers around here recently, it confuses me as to why they come on this forum when they are invalidating all of the endless suffering that exists in this world or want to gatekeep suicide so that only certain people's wish to die is 'valid'. These types of people are so delusional, it's sad. Some of them probably just want attention really and arrogant people like that just reminds me of why I want to die in the first place.

But I think that pro life and anti choice are basically just the same thing, it doesn't really matter which term is used to describe those types of people. And nothing would ever change the way that the media views this site, as long as there is information about suicide methods the forum would be viewed as 'evil' or whatever. But I just wish that suicide wasn't so stigmatised so that there would be no need for any discussions about this or anything to analyse on the subject. All of those who wish to die should just be able to exit peacefully without having to struggle so much in finding ways to die. And if someone doesn't believe that euthanasia should be more readily available then they are definitely pro suffering.

 

[locked*n*loaded]

To me, I think this may be one of those solutions in search of a problem. And people lie. They could have any check mark you want indicating they're pro-choice on their profile, but their words and conveyances in post responses may indicate differently. I'm not sure differentiating users with labels will make much of a difference. I'll just make my judgments based on what they say.

 

[bluem00n]

I think we should have pro-life witch trials here. Once the accused are convicted I have a Modest Proposal for what to do with them.

Anyone who doesn't see the merit in this idea is delusional and should just go away or be insta banned. But I wish them the best. Pro choice bullies are welcome.

I guess your response could possibly be read as literal, but otherwise it looks like a mean-spirited parody of a FuneralCry post (in the latter case - in marked contrast to your glib remarks - her response was relevent, sincere, thoughtful, articulate, and had substance).
​

LITERAL (as a post expressing a sincere individual opinion)

'Pro-life' tends to be an ambiguous term at SS, so it depends what you mean by that ... if you mean 'anti-choice', then yes, I'd be inclined to agree that anyone who is proven to be openly anti-choice should indeed be banned from the site, as they would be knowingly violating the site's pro-choice stance that they would've signed-up to when they registered.

Perhaps you could define 'pro-choice bully', as the term seems like something of an oxymoron to me ... what I mean by that is that by being 'pro-choice' a person would be tolerant of more liberal approaches to suicide, and being tolerant and liberal - as attributes - is entirely at odds with bullying behaviour surely!

So yeah, I'd be interested in your clarification on that point.
​

PARODY (as a post keen to garner support from other individuals)

Is that it - a sarcastic / cheap point-scoring remark or two - or, more likely - you just wanna score some hi-fives from your forum buddies eh ...? In which case er, well done!

Indeed, it's so predictable it's tiresome that the same faces pop up to endorse your post, and also take the opportunity to post dismissive / derogatory reacts to my initial proposals. Those reacts bear witness to groupthink on full display - Chinaski / rationaltake / foxdie in particular have lately made themselves highly visible as a distinct clique within SS.

The factionalism this group have fomented with their gaslighting attacks on other members (as is on florid display in this thread) is certainly not serving the interests of 99% of the membership, many of whom I would remind are very desperate SUICIDAL people looking to SS in a last-ditch attempt to find help.

And having checked through this clique's recent activity, all I see are posts akin to 'subversive political activism' - never seeking help from, nor offering sympathetic advice to, members of the forum, but instead engaged solely in derisive attacks on certain selected individuals. In fact, that of late seems to be the only reason these people are here - I can't see any recent evidence of any other motive beyond that.

For Christ's sake, this is a place for people contemplating suicide, and all this clique does is flagrantly harass and mock individuals they disagree with, repeatedly ...? Get a grip, STEP BACK, and THINK about what you're doing here - this forum concerns some very very heavy stuff - REAL PEOPLE, AND REAL DEATHS - it's not some gaming forum or YouTube comments section for your idle amusement.

OK clique, react to that ^​

To me, I think this may be one of those solutions in search of a problem. And people lie. They could have any check mark you want indicating they're pro-choice on their profile, but their words and conveyances in post responses may indicate differently. I'm not sure differentiating users with labels will make much of a difference. I'll just make my judgments based on what they say.

Yes I agree, it's always best to judge others based on what they say (though also on how they say it, as I've raised in my response to foxdie above!). I guess the main point of my post is that pro-choice / anti-choice are more precise terms than simply 'pro-life', which strikes me as an ill-defined catch-all label that seems to be the catalyst for all sorts of conflict on the forums.​

 

[SamTam33]

Call me WTF you want. Just because you say it doesn't make it true. My issues are so much larger than what some person on the internet - likely halfway around the world - calls me.

They don't know me. So fuck them. From the depths of my soul: fuck them.

On the other hand, if you walk like a duck and quack like a duck (or however the saying goes lol), why are you mad if someone has mistaken you for a duck?!

Clarify your position and keep it moving.

 

[Chinaski]

For Christ's sake, this is a place for people contemplating suicide, and all this clique does is flagrantly harass and mock individuals they disagree with, repeatedly ...? Get a grip, STEP BACK, and THINK about what you're doing here - this forum concerns some very very heavy stuff - REAL PEOPLE, AND REAL DEATHS - it's not some gaming forum or YouTube comments section for your idle amusement.

OK clique, react to that ...[/JUSTIFY]

Bit dramatic imo, nobody is harassing you, a couple of people found your idea peculiar is all.

 

[bluem00n]

Bit dramatic imo, nobody is harassing you, a couple of people found your idea peculiar is all.

"Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation in which the abuser attempts to sow self-doubt and confusion in their victim's mind. Typically, gaslighters are seeking to gain power and control over the other person, by distorting reality and forcing them to question their own judgment and intuition".

Your reply to my post, along with your multiple laugh reacts on this thread, is entirely consistent with the definition of gaslighting above. So nope, I'm not inclined to lend your opinion any credence at all ...​

 

[odradek]

I guess your response could possibly be read as literal, but otherwise it looks like a mean-spirited parody of a FuneralCry post (in the latter case - in marked contrast to your glib remarks - her response was relevent, sincere, thoughtful, articulate, and had substance).

My response may be a parody but I don't think it's mean spirited, I think it's funny, but that is subjective I guess. If it is mean spirited it's at least as mean spirited as some of the things the user you mentioned has said on here.

LITERAL (as a post expressing a sincere individual opinion)
'Pro-life' tends to be an ambiguous term at SS, so it depends what you mean by that ... if you mean 'anti-choice', then yes, I'd be inclined to agree that anyone who is proven to be openly anti-choice should indeed be banned from the site, as they would be knowingly violating the site's pro-choice stance that they would've signed-up to when they registered.

Perhaps you could define 'pro-choice bully', as the term seems like something of an oxymoron to me ... what I mean by that is that by being 'pro-choice' a person would be tolerant of more liberal approaches to suicide, and being tolerant and liberal - as attributes - is entirely at odds with bullying behaviour surely!

So yeah, I'd be interested in your clarification on that point.

I didn't mean a literal "pro-choice bully". I meant someone who is "pro-choice" (or claims to be) who is also a bully. People are full of many contradictions.

PARODY (as a post keen to garner support from other individuals)
Is that it ...? A sarcastic / cheap point-scoring remark or two - or, more likely - you just wanna score some hi-fives from your forum buddies eh ...? In which case er, well done!

Indeed, it's so predictable it's tiresome that the same faces pop up to endorse your post, and also take the opportunity to post dismissive / derogatory reacts to my initial proposals. Those reacts bear witness to groupthink on full display - Chinaski / rationaltake / foxdie in particular have lately made themselves highly visible as a distinct clique within SS.

Not trying to score high fives. I find this discourse silly and ridiculous. People who disagree with me, generally, don't engage with me so I fall to jokes. Not constructive at all. I'd figure you would ignore it, or me. It's cheap and I'm sorry this has upset you so much. I can assure you there's no clique outside of people with overlapping views or senses of humour. Maybe. I don't know. This is playground stuff.

The factionalism this group have fomented with their gaslighting attacks on other members (as is on florid display in this thread) is certainly not serving the interests of 99% of the membership, many of whom I would remind are very desperate SUICIDAL people looking to SS in a last-ditch attempt to find help.

Please provide examples of gaslighting attacks by me. That has never been my intention anywhere ever with my words on this site. I will answer for it.

And having checked through this clique's recent activity, all I see are posts akin to 'subversive political activism' - never seeking help from, nor offering sympathetic advice to, members of the forum, but instead engaged solely in derisive attacks on certain selected individuals. In fact, that of late seems to be the only reason these people are here - I can't see any recent evidence of any other motive beyond that.

If my recent activity is akin to 'subversive political activism', please report me to the mods. If enough people feel this way, it should get their attention and I should be banned. I hope I would be. I am here for my own reasons. If you want to question my motives, feel free to do so. I will not however prove my "suicidal credentials" to the likes of you. Grow up.

For Christ's sake, this is a place for people contemplating suicide, and all this clique does is flagrantly harass and mock individuals they disagree with, repeatedly ...? Get a grip, STEP BACK, and THINK about what you're doing here - this forum concerns some very very heavy stuff - REAL PEOPLE, AND REAL DEATHS - it's not some gaming forum or YouTube comments section for your idle amusement.

OK clique, react to that ...

This has been one of my overriding points this entire time. We can't be all hugs and kisses all the time on here BECAUSE suicide is fucking serious my dude. Yes real people and real deaths. We should all be thinking about this FFS. And please, seriously, if I am flagrantly harassing people report me white knight. Please.

 

[Chinaski]

"Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation in which the abuser attempts to sow self-doubt and confusion in their victim's mind. Typically, gaslighters are seeking to gain power and control over the other person, by distorting reality and forcing them to question their own judgment and intuition".

Your reply to my post, along with your multiple laugh reacts on this thread, is entirely consistent with the definition of gaslighting above. So nope, I'm not inclined to lend your opinion any credence at all ...​

You're just wrong here is all, it isn't a clique of subversive harrassers out to bully you and it's certainly dramatic to suggest that disapproval of your suggestion that forum entry criteria requires a rubber-stamp of adherence to a cod-philosophy beyond the simple "I want to kill myself" is in itself a potential cause of suicide.

 

[bluem00n]

My response ... (etc)

The issue I have with your original post is that - as a parody - it inevitably comes across as mocking FuneralCry, as a veiled attack on her, even though the thread didn't involve her. It just looks willfully provocative to do that, and so utterly, utterly unnecessary and pointless as well.

It strikes me as quite inappropiate to make humourous remarks at other people's expense, especially on a Forum intended to provide support to suicidal people for chrissakes, and that clearly includes FuneralCry. In light of that, I can't see how anyone would think it's OK to parody her writing style as a source of entertainment, one that prompted other members to endorse it. Frankly, I don't think it's me that needs to 'grow up'.

And by its very nature, your post dismissed my suggestion out-of-hand, and no one is going to appreciate such flippancy to what had been a sincerely submitted proposal.​

You're just wrong here is all, it isn't a clique of subversive harrassers out to bully you and it's certainly dramatic to suggest that disapproval of your suggestion that forum entry criteria requires a rubber-stamp of adherence to a cod-philosophy beyond the simple "I want to kill myself" is in itself a potential cause of suicide.

Haha, that certainly convinced me that you're not gaslighting (not) !

 

[odradek]

The issue I have with your original post is that - as a parody - it inevitably comes across as mocking FuneralCry, as a veiled attack on her, even though the thread didn't involve her. It just looks willfully provocative to do that, and so utterly, utterly unnecessary and pointless as well.

It strikes me as quite inappropiate to make humourous remarks at other people's expense, especially on a Forum intended to provide support to suicidal people for chrissakes, and that clearly includes FuneralCry. In light of that, I can't see how anyone would think it's OK to parody her writing style as a source of entertainment, one that prompted other members to endorse it. Frankly, I don't think it's me that needs to 'grow up'.

And by its very nature, your post dismissed my suggestion out-of-hand, and no one is going to appreciate such flippancy to what had been a sincerely submitted proposal.

If you don't see anything inappropriate with the words I parodied, the specific words I used, then we have nothing to talk about. She isn't always the kindest soul either. There are other things I could bring up but I don't really want to right now. Because this is stupid playground shit and I say that knowing full well I'm participating. I'm a hypocrite but I'm not wrong.

And you're right about one thing, I do need to grow up. But you're wrong thinking that you don't. I'd daresay it's a never ending process. You're the one who is making this about one person. I think the first part of my joke could apply more generally here.

 

[odradek]

And by its very nature, your post dismissed my suggestion out-of-hand, and no one is going to appreciate such flippancy to what had been a sincerely submitted proposal.

This is also true. However my post made my position very clear. If you were to move past the joke and the school yard ish, I'd engage in good faith, I mean I know I can be a bit much sometimes. I'm not saying you have to, but you could also ignore it and ignore me. I know I can be an asshole sometimes. I'm sorry I was flippant towards your sincere proposal. I don't think a check mark system is a good idea. I'm not trying to make anyone feel unwelcome. I made a joke, reacted out of anger to its response and here we are.

 

[bluem00n]

No worries foxdie, no harm done really ... I'd already retired from this thread!
OK Then,
All The Best!

 

[odradek]

Well I think there was harm done. That's why I got so angry. Next time you want to attack people's characters provide evidence so we can answer for it or report it. I'm sick of all the passive aggressive talking past people ish. Be direct through your words or the report button next time. Gaslighting, subversive political activism, harrassment, these are serious accusations. You named me and others directly. Just keep that in mind.

All the best.

 

[rationaltake]

So far gallows humour and wit haven't been banned from the forum! Maybe those two things will be the next casualties.

 

[bluem00n]

Well I think there was harm done. That's why I got so angry. Next time you want to attack people's characters provide evidence so we can answer for it or report it. I'm sick of all the passive aggressive talking past people ish. Be direct through your words or the report button next time. Gaslighting, subversive political activism, harrassment, these are serious accusations. You named me and others directly. Just keep that in mind.

All the best.

Read the first post (mine), then read the first response (yours).
Now - in light of the state-of-play at that point in this exchange, think about which of us would be most justified in feeling angry.
It certainly ain't you - I reckon you'd have been feeling pretty pleased with yourself when you pressed [Post Reply] on Post #2.

When I said "no harm done" I meant no harm has been done to me as a result of my thread being derailed by your nasty little Post #2.
That means I really couldn't care less - I'm absolutely fine about all this, thanks!
But I will nevertheless challenge you every time you or any member of your clique sets out to disrupt other member's contributions to the site.
You do that repeatedly with FuneralCry, and that's exactly what you did here on this thread, with Post #2.

... in my book your post was subversive and 'political', and the most recent instance of harassment.
Oh, and Chinaski's specialty is gaslighting.

It's up to you how YOU feel about things.
So, if you are angry then you need to think about the FUNDAMENTAL cause of that.

Was it my initial post that made you angry ...?
No way.

The true ROOT cause of your anger is that your snide and provocative response backfired on you.
That 'orrible little post of yours was deliberately calculated to upset me as the author, denigrate FuneralCry, and score some cheap points from members of your clique.
Your anger is a product of me challenging your nasty little remarks.
So - to use your favoured 'playground' analogy - You started it!
And you know it.
That's why you're angry.

I'll say it again ...
I will challenge you every time you or any member of your clique sets out to disrupt other member's contributions to the site.
Cos I love doing that. It's what I do!
I'm quite simply passionate about standing up to bullys, and supporting the underdog in a fight.
I really get a buzz from it!

Seriously, your latest post made me laugh out loud, for making out that your indignation is all my fault, when it's plain for anyone to see that you started the whole ball rolling with your nasty little comment in Post #2.

To summarise, given that you've made no genuine or useful contribution to the subject of the thread - not a single word for or against the original proposal - then it would surely have been best to read it and walk away. That's what the majority of readers have done. So I think you need to ask yourself why you chose to step in the way you did, and derail it. What was the motivation behind that action ...?​

Regrettably for you, I won't be obeying your instructions on how I should conduct myself here, I'll stick to the Forum rules instead - maybe you should read them sometime.​

So far gallows humour and wit haven't been banned from the forum! Maybe those two things will be the next casualties.

I don't have any problem at all with humourous posts generally.
I do have a problem however, when that humour is at the expense of another member of the Forum, when they are the 'target' of that so-called 'humour'.​

 

[Chinaski]

If you're going to repeatedly accuse me of "gaslighting" it would be helpful if you:

a) understood fully what the term meant (clue: it's not disagreeing with someone on the internet) and

b) provided an example of this instead of wasting time formatting your lengthy posts to give them the same visual appeal as a letter a 1970s serial killer would send to the cops

 

[bluem00n]

Regrettably for you, I won't be obeying your instructions on how I should conduct myself here, I'll stick to the Forum rules instead - maybe you should read them sometime.

(a) asserts that I don't know what gaslighting is (that's gaslighting in itself right there!)
(b) is just derogatory and abusive *shrug*
Still, (b) did make me laugh out loud - classic Chinaski right there!
So yeah, thanks for that!

 

[odradek]

Read the first post (mine), then read the first response (yours).
Now - in light of the state-of-play at that point in this exchange, think about which of us would be most justified in feeling angry.
It certainly ain't you - I reckon you'd have been feeling pretty pleased with yourself when you pressed [Post Reply] on Post #2.

When I said "no harm done" I meant no harm has been done to me as a result of my thread being derailed by your nasty little Post #2.
That means I really couldn't care less - I'm absolutely fine about all this, thanks!
But I will nevertheless challenge you every time you or any member of your clique sets out to disrupt other member's contributions to the site.
You do that repeatedly with FuneralCry, and that's exactly what you did here on this thread, with Post #2.

... in my book your post was subversive and 'political', and the most recent instance of harassment.
Oh, and Chinaski's specialty is gaslighting.

It's up to you how YOU feel about things.
So, if you are angry then you need to think about the FUNDAMENTAL cause of that.

Was it my initial post that made you angry ...?
No way.

The true ROOT cause of your anger is that your snide and provocative response backfired on you.
That 'orrible little post of yours was deliberately calculated to upset me as the author, denigrate FuneralCry, and score some cheap points from members of your clique.
Your anger is a product of me challenging your nasty little remarks.
So - to use your favoured 'playground' analogy - You started it!
And you know it.
That's why you're angry.

I'll say it again ...
I will challenge you every time you or any member of your clique sets out to disrupt other member's contributions to the site.
Cos I love doing that. It's what I do!
I'm quite simply passionate about standing up to bullys, and supporting the underdog in a fight.
I really get a buzz from it!

Seriously, your latest post made me laugh out loud, for making out that your indignation is all my fault, when it's plain for anyone to see that you started the whole ball rolling with your nasty little comment in Post #2.

To summarise, given that you've made no genuine or useful contribution to the subject of the thread - not a single word for or against the original proposal - then it would surely have been best to read it and walk away. That's what the majority of readers have done. So I think you need to ask yourself why you chose to step in the way you did, and derail it. What was the motivation behind that action ...?​

Regrettably for you, I won't be obeying your instructions on how I should conduct myself here, I'll stick to the Forum rules instead - maybe you should read them sometime.

I don't have any problem at all with humourous posts generally.
I do have a problem however, when that humour is at the expense of another member of the Forum, when they are the 'target' of that so-called 'humour'.​

God damn I tried, your stubbornness is more impressive than mine. I wasn't trying to place blame on you for my anger, I was admitting that I was angry. I was owning my feelings dude, geez.

You do you bud.